Benefits and risks of obtaining a DETC Psy.D?

I have to agree with Rich on this point. Failure of all posters, not just Simon, not to specify their academic, and sometimes professional, qualifications lose their credibility.

Although I agree that DETC degrees have a lower level of acceptability than RA degrees (with one exception that I know of) I would pursue a reasonable priced DETC doctorate if one came up in my field.

 

It's apparent that you don't like the fact that some DL law schools have relaxed standards and are making a lot of money, money which you feel wouldn't be there if they raised the bar, so to speak. In effect, if they did raise the bar, that it would account for a decrease in "75% or more" in revenues, revenues which I have concluded you would like see go to your traditional B&M law schools.

With the way the economy is going, many of these B&M schools will have to close the doors or otherwise be forced to raise the costs of their programs, which will undoubtably drive even more potential students to DL law schools, all of which poses a threat to the regionalists mindset. In many respects, these B&M schools are dinosaurs and headed towards extinction, very much like what the major music conglomerates are experiencing. What this is really about is anti-competitive practices and eliminating DL competitors that are generating money, without having the high operational costs of a traditional B&M school.

After five pages, I've pretty much said everything I have to say on the issue of DETC degrees and those graduates who choose to attend non-traditional law schools.

Your points are well taken.

 

Simon, you've presented yourself to the board as if you are a mental-health clinician. It might be true, I don't know. But assuming that it is, you must know that this crazy discussion-board psychoanalyzing of yours is totally unprofessional. You really need to stop it.

If you were confident in your own ability to counter Rich's ideas logically and factually, then would you resort to this ad-hominem character assassination stuff? You're essentially admitting defeat when you do that.

Ranting on about how Rich graduated from a weak RA doctoral program certainly doesn't help you to defend weak DETC doctoral programs. If his program somehow discredits him, them presumably weak DETC doctorates would discredit their graduates too. Your argument is self-defeating.

My own opinion is that while Union and the Cal Southern doctorates are both found towards the weak end of the accredited doctorate scale, they both have some legitimacy and might actually have some interesting features. The innovative interdisciplinary nature of the old Union degree was definitely a cool feature in my opinion. Union was kind of a leader in that. Maybe somebody can point out something equally cool about Cal Southern, I don't know. Nobody's even tried to talk up its merits so far.

 

Ian, it would not surprise me if there were quite a few prospective students who would consider a DETC doctorate if it was congruent with their profession.

 

Ian, the above statement is a gross generalization and not necessarily true. Because a poster reveals their academic and/or professional qualifications does not necessarily imply that their statements, ideas or recommendations have any greater credibility, substance or weight than that emanating from an anonymous poster. This is due to the obvious fact that regardless of their academic and/or professional qualifications they, like the rest of us, have specific motives, subjective beliefs, preferences and perspectives leaning towards certain positions and away from others that may have absolutely nothing to do with the facts.

 

Nationally Accredited Psy.D

We don't have a single DETC Psy.D as of yet, No one here really knows what is going to happen. At the moment, CalSouthern Psy.Ds (though the school was still unaccredited when they graduated) are able to practice as clinical psychologists. I haven't encountered one negative comment from a CalSouthern Psy.D grad in any of the Internet boards.

 

But a DETC-doctorate is not an accepted doctorate for anything, really, so why bother completing it? Moreover, it may not be necessary to pay someone to get their approval, as depicted in the following script:

Interviewer: "I see that you are ABD from such and such school. What does that mean? What happened?"

Candidate: "I don't know. Here is my completed [choose dissertation / dissertation proposal] though."

Interviewer: "I've never even heard of that school."

Candidate: "Yes, it is a [insert defining characteristic] school."

Interviewer: "Wow, this is impressive work!"

Candidate: "Thank you."

Interviewer: "Why didn't they graduate you?"

Candidate: "I don't know. I'm not a psychiatrist... (grinning)."

Interviewer: "HaHaHa (laughter)... That's a good one!"

Candidate: "Thanks."

Interviewer: "How do you think you could apply those skills here?"

Candidate: "Well, blah, blah, blah..."

 

"I haven't encountered one negative comment from a CalSouthern Psy.D grad in any of the Internet boards"

- I was a student at CalSouthern a few years back. One of the criticisms that I encountered was the lack of accreditation. There was growing pressure from the grad students for calsouthern to gain accreditation.

" At the moment, CalSouthern Psy.Ds (though the school was still unaccredited when they graduated) are able to practice as clinical psychologists."

- Where? In California I would assume.

 

Thanks for the list Ian. I figured there were a couple of licensed Cal/Scups grads licensed in California.

 

Looks like there are some CCU grads in there as well.

Abner

 

OK,

I've already sent PMs on this, but I want to make it absolutely crystal clear.

Personal attacks are not OK.

I've just spent 45 minutes cleaning up the personal attacks in this thread, something I don't like wasting time doing. If I have to do it again, somebody is going to get banned.

If you have an issue with someone that is personal, it should be discussed over PM, not in the public discussion boards.

This issue is always contentious, and I don't think either side will ever convince the other of their argument. It's fine to debate, but the debate should focus on the merits of the arguments themselves, not on anything having to do with attacks on the posters.

If we can keep the debate civil, then it should continue. If not, the thread will be closed.

 

"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

Brilliant!

 

Several days ago I noted that Florida permits individuals with a doctorate that is approved by the USDOE (ie, NA doctoral programs) to be legally able to refer to themselves as "doctor". As mentioned, Florida has one of the most stringent statutes governing the use of this title so this finding is not insignificant.

Yesterday, I contacted the New York State board of professions and was informed that a doctorate in a mental health discipline that is approved by an NA accrediting agency would also enable a licensed practitioner to legally refer to themselves as "doctor". Therefore, although not a guarantee, it is not unreasonable to believe that a number of other states will also permit an NA doctorate specializing in an appropriate mental health specialization to enable the recipient to legally use the title "doctor" as well. However, at this time using a DETC accredited Psy.D degree specifically for licensure as a Psychologist will most probably result in significant resistance and opposition from the majority of psychology state boards of licensure.

So, if a licensed mental health professional is in private practice or works for a mental health agency or in a mental health or academic administrative/managerial capacity, a DETC accredited Psy.D MAY meet their professional needs and career objectives. This degree also MAY be a potential pathway for seasoned and more mature practitioners who have completed course work for a doctorate at an earlier stage in their career but not the entire doctoral program. Of course, one should always check with their respective state boards and employer prior to assuming that an NA doctorate will be acceptable in their current positions or respective state for their intended purposes.

 

It's important to note, however, that the use of the term "doctor" by licensed social workers and counselors who are NOT licensed at the doctoral level (i.e. as a psychologist) is severely restricted. For example, this is what the board in Florida told me today:

If a person has earned a doctoral degree it is his/her constitutional,
free speech, right to use the title of "Doctor." However it is
imperative that the individual is clear in interactions with the public
and consumers that he/she is NOT a licensed psychologist, but he/she is
free to state educational achievements.

"Dr. ________,LMHC, is not a licensed psychologist but has a Ph.D./Psy.D
in psychology"

This is irrespective of the RA/NA issue. So, a master's-level family counselor who goes on to earn the PsyD in question, but does not also get licensed as a psychologist, had better ensure that disclaimer is present whenever he/she uses the title. (In Florida, anyway. In many states, the person couldn't even use it at all.)

So here's the bottom line: The PsyD is meant for licensure as a psychologist. Will the PsyD program in question lead to it? Probably not in most states, perhaps--with additional qualifications--in a few. But using the title "doctor" while performing health-related duties without licensure at that level can get one in trouble. Hopefully, that person's representative will be a real attorney, and not just someone with a J.D. from a correspondence school.

 

In New York:

Using the Title "doctor"

Licensed individuals who have earned a doctorate degree may use the title "doctor," provided they disclose the field in which they hold the doctorate. An earned doctorate is a doctoral degree conferred by a recognized college or university authorized to confer doctoral degrees in the state (or, for foreign schools, in the country) in which it is located. Licensees in the health professions may not use the title "doctor" when offering to perform professional services without indicating the profession in which the licensee holds the doctorate. For example, for an individual with a Ph.D. in Music who holds a license in speech-language pathology to use the title, "doctor," he or she must indicate that his or her doctorate is in music.

Again, free speech and all that, but be sure use full disclosure. And, again, the RA/NA issue seems irrelevant, but the use of a DETC-accredited PsyD that doesn't lead to licensure as a psychologist could get someone in a lot of trouble if not handled correctly. And I would expect the benefit of the doubt would fall to the consumer, not the provider.

 

One possibly relevant point here:

There seems to be movement in the direction of allowing some doctoral-level clinical psychologists (I have heard conflicting information as to whether it will be PsyD, Ph.D or both, and I'm sure it will vary by state) to prescribe medication for psychological-related disorders (antidepressants, anti-anxiety meds, etc).

I suspect that when this issue starts to heat up, it will bring out a very, very strong response from the medical lobby, particularly psychiatrists, who one can assume will not have the slightest interest in giving up their turf, especially since the majority of psychiatrists do little more than prescribe medications.

I would think that perhaps in the context of that discussion (whether it's appropriate for a non-medical professional to be able to prescribe medications for psychological purposes) that an examination of degrees, accreditors, and perhaps even delivery methods (distance vs. classroom-based) could come into play. So we may see some more light shed on the DETC issue as sort of a "fallout" issue related to this brewing issue between psychologists and psychiatrists.